This article illustrates in large part why I'm so much more of a Republican these days than a Democrat.  Brad Delong, lately the patron saint of Econ for the Democrat / Liberal establisment, analyzes the Bushie's SocSec reform proposal and finds it wanting.  Now, from 10,000 feet, I find it incredibly difficult for an Honest Liberal to argue with the current proposal on the table -

• Don't touch benefits for poor Soc Sec recipients
• Moderate cuts in benefits for average income earners
• Sharp cuts for high income earners
• Use income tax revenue to cover the rest (for now....)

Heck, my beef with the proposal isn't in direction but rather in degree -- it's not radical enough.   When I'm through cutting benefits, we wouldn't need no stinkin' tax increases.  But, from the comfort of my airplane aisle seat, I don't really have to worry about getting a program past Congress and the AARP lobby - so I'll accept that the world needs more than a little political expediency.

It's important to note that this proposal is independent of Bush's private savings accounts proposal.   Regardless of whether or not private savings happen, this plan is a Good Thing to do.  Presumably, if/when Bush allows individuals to divert up to 4% of thier income into pre-tax, private savings accounts, this money would be removed from their Soc Sec contributions. 

BUT, despite the modest goals here, Liberals like Delong are still managing to carp loudly - what's interesting this time around are the reasons being given -

Reason #1 - the Rich need to be kept in the program

Insulating the poor from cuts is a left-wing goal. But it will create a large class of Americans who get much, much less out of Social Security than they put in and for whom Social Security as a whole is demonstrably a very bad deal. Early Social Security guru Wilbur Cohen may well have been correct in his belief that "in the United States, a program that deals only with the poor will end up being a poor program. ... "

The motives & philosophy are so naked and stripped to their bare essentials here it just makes me sick.  We're no longer talking about merely using Soc Sec to help the poor - a motive that even this ardent Libertarian can agree with.  

Instead, in its full glory, Delong's / the Democrat's real desire is to keep the the government's grubby, filthy paws on allocation decisions for a large - and growing - chunk of the national income of all Americans.   This goal is apparently so important that it's even worth sacrificing the bulk of old skool liberal rhetoric & giving the rich *more* if need be.   In other words, Power over income is more important than Equality of outcome.

Reason #2 - Bush is just trying to score cheap political points

...Bush's embrace of a program to make the distribution of income more equal can be explained as a Trojan horse to eliminate Social Security in the long run. That must be what Bush is thinking, right? It's not that he's suddenly worried that the working poor don't get a large enough share of America's wealth, right?

But quite possibly wrong. It's also possible that the White House is just desperate to somehow generate forward motion on Social Security, and that it hopes that a fiscally progressive policy change will be popular...

I guess when you presumably SHOULD agree with your opponent's plan BUT, you're still have a deep psychological need to cast him as an enemy, the only thing left to do is question his motives and accuse him of hypocrisy.  Afterall, it's unfair of him to not play the role of the big bad ogre you need him to be.   Can't we all just grow up?   Mr. DeLong - taking a half-step is called Compromise - its something you can learn from. 

---